From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
Verses 39-71
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
Weymouth: On going out, He proceeded as usual to the Mount of Olives,
and His disciples followed Him.
WEB: He came
out, and went, as his custom was, to the
Young’s: And having gone forth, he went on,
according to custom, to the mount of the Olives, and his disciples also
followed him,
Conte (RC): And departing, he
went out, according to his custom, to the
as He was
wont, to the mount of Olives. This
mount overlooks
and His
disciples also followed Him. As they were wont [accustomed], probably,
although it may be meant that He preceded them, and that they followed in fear,
as at Mark 10:32. [52]
The walk would be under
the full Paschal moon amid the deep hush that falls over an Oriental city at
night. The only recorded incident of the
walk is one more warning to the disciples, and specially
to Peter. Matthew 26:32-35. [56]
WEB: When he
was at the place, he said to them, "Pray that you don't enter into
temptation."
Young’s: and having come to the place, he said to
them, 'Pray ye not to enter into temptation.'
Conte (RC): And when he had
arrived at the place, he said to them: "Pray, lest you enter into
temptation."
Textual descriptions of the location in the four gospel
accounts [52]: Luke does not name, or even describe it. From John (18:1), we learn that it was “a
garden” = pleasure-ground, park. The
particular word translated “place” in Matthew 26:36 [and] Mark
The
popular possible location today [18]: There is at the present day just beyond the
brook Kedron, between the paths that go up to the
summit of the mount, about three quarters of a mile from the Jerusalem wall, an
enclosed garden called Gethsemane. It
belongs to the Latin community in
When Henry Maundrell
visited the spot, in 1697, these eight aged trees were believed to be the same
that stood there in the blessed Savior's time.
Bove the botanist, in Ritter's 'Geography of
Josephus, however, relates that in
the great siege the soldiers of Titus cut down all the trees in the
He said
unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. To be
tempted and to enter into temptation [voluntarily] are two different
things. [7]
Or:
That they might not, in the trying circumstances before them, be found
off their guard so that these should prove sufficient to turn them from their
discipleship. [52]
First He left eight of
them to sleep under the trees while He withdrew with Peter and James and John,
whom He told to watch and pray. [56]
In
depth: The time of the departure to
Supposing the paschal supper to have
commenced about 6 P. M., or
sundown, the several incidents of the feast, and
the Lord's discourse and prayer, must have occupied them till near
Of the situation of the house where the supper was
eaten, we know nothing. Greswell supposes it to have been in the eastern part of the city; and, wherever it was,
it could not have been very far distant from the garden. We cannot be far wrong if we suppose the Lord to have reached
The
Greswell
hints that the family of Lazarus might have had
possessions there. From
a comparison of Luke xxi. 37
with xxii. 39, it appears that the Lord had
spent some part of the previous nights there,
perhaps alone in prayer.
Whether the site of the modern
Several of the
most recent inquirers are disposed to deny the identification. Thomson (ii. 483) says: "The position is too near the city, and
so close to what must have always been the great thoroughfare eastward, that our Lord would scarcely have selected it for retirement
on that dangerous and dismal night."
He finds a better site several hundred yards to the northeast, on the
But whether the
present garden occupies precisely the old site or not, it is certain that it
must be near it. It lies
a little east of the
There are
within eight venerable olive trees, undoubtedly of great
age, their trunks much decayed, but branches flourishing. "The most venerable of their race on the face of the
earth," says
-- From: Samuel J. Andrews. The Life of Our Lord
upon the Earth—Considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical
Relations. Fourth
Edition.
WEB: He was
withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and he knelt down and prayed,
Young’s: And he was withdrawn from them, as it
were a stone's cast, and having fallen on the knees he was praying,
Conte (RC): And he was separated
from them by about a stone's throw. And kneeling down, he prayed,
The
passive form, “was withdrawn,” “separated,” is noticeable, as if it was
by some influence exerted upon Him that He removed. He was not so removed but that He could have
the sense of their presence and sympathy, and that they, some of them, could be
aware of what He experienced in that dark hour. [52]
about a stone's cast. A customary measurement in
the Greek and Roman writers. [14]
Not more than forty or
fifty yards. [7]
and kneeled down and prayed. He fell on His face on the ground (Matthew 26:39;
Mark
While Luke does not
mention the thrice-repeated petition, he uses a form of the verb which
distinctly shows that it was not a single request, but a continued supplication
= was engaged in prayer, or, kept praying. [52]
In depth: Differences
between the gospel accounts in regard to the intense period of prayer in the
Garden [18]. This
eventful scene is recounted in detail by all the three Synoptists. St. Matthew's account is the most
complete. St. Mark adds one saying of
the Lord's containing a deep theological truth, "Abba, Father, all things
are possible unto thee." These remarkable
words, occurring as they do in the midst of the most solemn scene of prayer in the
Redeemer's earth-life, tell of the vast possibilities of prayer. What may not be accomplished by earnest
supplication to the throne of grace?
St.
Luke's account is the shortest, but it contains the story of the angelic
mission of help, and the additional detail of the "bloody sweat."
St. John alone of the
four omits the scene; but, as in other most important recitals where he
refrains from repeating the story of things thoroughly known in his Master's
Church at the period when he committed his Gospel to writing, he takes care,
however, often to record some hitherto unrecorded piece of the Lord's teaching,
which is calculated to throw new light upon the momentous twice and thrice told
incident, the story of which he does not deem it necessary to repeat. So in John 2:1-25 he throws a flood of light
upon Christian baptism. John 6:1-71 is a
Divine commentary on the Eucharist. While in John 12:23-28 he gives us, in his Master's words, a new
insight into that awful sorrow which was the source of the agony in
Or / In Addition [52]: Luke is brief in his account of the scene,
although he alone mentions the assisting angel (verse 43), and the bloody sweat
(verse 44). He says nothing of the
preliminary selection of the three chief apostles; of Christ’s peculiar
distress of mind; of his withdrawing from the three selected companions; of the
three-fold repetition of His prayer; of His gradual restoration to serenity of
mind, as He prayed; of the somnolence [= falling to sleep] of the disciples,
renewed again and again; and of His apology for them. We can only explain this by supposing that
our Gospel follows an account of the scene which aimed to give only the
substance of the transaction. This it
does, in full harmony with the other accounts, with the particulars of which
Luke was, possibly, not acquainted
WEB: saying,
"Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless,
not my will, but yours, be done."
Young’s: saying, 'Father, if Thou be counselling to make this cup pass from me -- but, not my
will, but Thine be done.' --
Conte (RC): saying:
"Father, if you are willing, take this chalice away from me. Yet truly,
let not my will, but yours, be done."
if Thou be
willing. If Thou canst consent—find it consistent with
Thy pleasure. [52]
remove. The Greek verb was employed by classical
writers to denote the act of a servant in taking dishes off the table. Thus, Christ prays that, if it please God, that experience of pain, and shame, and death
with torture, which was now beginning, might be removed from before Him. [52]
this cup from Me. “Cup,” by metonmy, for its contents, which, again, is the measured
experience of joy or sorrow allotted to one as his portion by God. This was a common way, in Hebrew, of naming
one’s Divinely appointed fortune, especially when regarded in the light of a
retribution (Psalms 23:5; 73:8; Isaiah 51:17; Ezekiel 22:31). [52]
nevertheless not My will,
but Thine, be done. The Father’s
will is to be the controlling factor even when the Son’s preference is
something different. And the Son
candidly acknowledges this as proper and right.
[rw]
Weymouth: And there appeared to Him an angel from Heaven, strengthening
Him;
WEB: An angel
from heaven appeared to him, strengthening him.
Young’s: And there appeared to him a messenger
from heaven strengthening him;
Conte (RC): Then an Angel
appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him.
an angel. It is
uncertain whether the angel would have been visible to other eyes, if others
had been present. He is not said to have
come, but he “appeared unto” = was seen by the Saviour. [52]
strengthening Him. In some way this proof of the
presence and sympathy of celestial beings gave Him increased ability to bear
what He had taken upon Him with the approbation of His Father. We cannot so well comprehend this as the
benefit of that earlier angel-ministry, after His temptation (Matthew
And the question of Jesus’ nature. [To assist] His human
nature, to sustain the great burden that was upon His soul. Some have supposed from this, that He was not
Divine as well as human; for if He was God, how could an angel give any
strength or comfort, and why did not the Divine nature alone sustain the
human? But the fact that He was Divine,
does not affect the case at all. It
might be asked with the same propriety, If He was, as all admit, the friend of
God and beloved of God, and holy, why, if He was a mere man, did not God
sustain Him alone, without an angel's intervening? But the objection in neither case would have
any force. The man, Christ Jesus, was
suffering. His human nature was in
agony; and it is the manner of God to sustain the afflicted by the intervention
of others. [11]
WEB: Being in
agony he prayed more earnestly. His sweat became like great drops of blood
falling down on the ground.
Young’s: and
having been in agony, he was more earnestly praying, and his sweat became, as
it were, great drops of blood falling upon the ground.
Conte (RC): And being in agony,
he prayed more intensely; and so his sweat became like drops of blood, running
down to the ground.
He prayed more earnestly. His
emotional turmoil did not cause Him to despair and give up praying, but drove
Him to even more intense prayer.
[rw]
and his sweat
was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground. Only here in New Testament: gouts or clots. Very common in medical
language. Aristotle mentions a
bloody sweat arising from the blood being in poor condition; and Theophrastus
mentions a physician who compared a species of sweat to blood. [2]
The physical frame of
Jesus was now in full sympathy with His mental distress. Instances of what has been called bloody
sweat are on record numerous and authentic.
Galen says: "Cases sometimes
happen in which, through mental pressure, the pores may be so dilated that the
blood may issue from them, so that there may be a bloody sweat." The Latin poet, Lucan,
in his poem, the Pharsalia, vividly describes a case
in which the sweat is ruddy. Yet Luke,
the only one of the four Evangelists who mentions the circumstance now before
us, affirms not that the sweat was blood, but "as it were
great drops of blood." If we do not
understand actual drops of blood, we must, at all events, conceive them as
heavy, thick drops, which, mingled and colored for the most part with portions
of blood, looked altogether like drops of blood. [9]
Or:
Luke does not however use the term “bloody sweat,” but says that the
dense sweat of agony fell from him “like blood gouts”—which may mean as
drops of blood do from a wound. [56]
WEB: When he
rose up from his prayer, he came to the disciples, and found them sleeping
because of grief,
Young’s: And having risen up from the prayer,
having come unto the disciples, he found them sleeping from the sorrow,
Conte (RC): And when he had
risen up from prayer and had gone to his disciples, he found them sleeping out
of sorrow.
and was come to
His disciples, sleeping. It certainly shows us that they
were far, even yet, from comprehending the seriousness of the crisis in which
they stood. That the Saviour,
deeply grieved as He was, should still find some [defense] for them, in the
weakness of the flesh (Matthew 26:41), may lead us to judge them
leniently. They had begun the previous
day early; it was now certainly after
for
sorrow. On account
of the greatness of their sorrow.
[11]
The mental “wear and tear” of stress can literally wear a person
out—especially under the circumstances pictured here: imminent disaster, the clear refusal of Jesus
to either flee or seize the initiative away from His foes. A situation from which there seems (and is)
“no way out” except getting through it. [rw]
Psalms 69:20. The last two words give rather the cause than
the excuse. They are analogous to “the
spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” of Matthew 26:41. Luke here abbreviates the fuller records
given in Matthew 26 [and] Mark 14, from which we find that Jesus thrice came
to His Apostles, and thrice found them sleeping (see Isaiah 63:3),--each
momentary pause of prayer marking a fresh step in His victorious
submission. This was the Temptation of
Jesus by every element of anguish, as He had been tempted in the wilderness by
every element of desire. [56]
WEB: and said
to them, "Why do you sleep? Rise and pray that you may not enter into
temptation."
Young’s: and he said to them, 'Why do ye sleep? having risen, pray that ye may not enter into temptation.'
Conte (RC): And when he had
risen up from prayer and had gone to his disciples, he found them sleeping out
of sorrow.
Rise. = Rouse yourselves. Expresses here the notion of “stand promptly
up,” and implies their urgent need of faith and courage. [52]
and pray, lest ye
enter into temptation. While there is yet a brief time for it (verse 47). [42]
“Simon, sleepest thou? Were
ye so unable to watch with Me a single hour?” Matthew 26:40; Mark 14:37. The second time He does not seem to
have spoken to them. The third time He knew
that it was too late. The object of
their watching had now ceased, for He heard the tramp of men in the distance,
and saw the glare of their torches. [56]
WEB: While he
was still speaking, behold, a multitude, and he who was called Judas, one of
the twelve, was leading them. He came near to Jesus to kiss him.
Young’s: And while he is speaking, lo, a
multitude, and he who is called Judas, one of the twelve, was coming before
them, and he came nigh to Jesus to kiss him,
Conte (RC): While he was still
speaking, behold, a crowd arrived. And he who is called Judas, one of the
twelve, went ahead of them and approached Jesus, in order to kiss him.
1. The band (John xviii. 3), being a detachment
from the garrison of five hundred Roman soldiers who, in the fortress of
Antonia, overlooking the temple, kept the Jews in awe. A detachment was ever ready to be sent when
the commander was informed that a disturber needed to be taken in custody. So that thus much Jesus was apprehended by
the loan of a Roman body.
2. The captains of the temple (Luke xxii. 52),
who came, doubtless, attended by their guard or police--men who kept order at
the temple.
3. Several of the Jewish
dignitaries attended to see the work carefully done, namely: chief priests, zealous Pharisees and elders.
4. Servants of these dignitaries (John xviii.
18), both private and official, like Malchus. Our Lord was thus arrested by the Jewish
authority, partly using Roman instrumentality.
[9]
and he that
was called Judas. Knowing the habit of his Master to resort to
this mountain at night, he would, if he found that the company had left the
upper room, proceed thither at once. [52]
one of the twelve.
With this name, as with a branding iron, Judas is designated even unto
the end. [9]
went before them. In order to point out to the multitude the
One whom they were to apprehend, by the preconcerted
sign. (See Matt. xxvi. 48.) [9]
and drew near
unto Jesus to kiss Him. [Both “drew near . . . to”] and did
actually kiss Him (Matthew 26:49; Mark
They knew that it would
be night, and that
In depth: Fitting the
data from the four gospels on the betrayal event into a consistent whole. The Lord's
words to the three apostles, after His last return to them (Matt. xxvi. 45; so
Mark), "Sleep on now, and take your rest," are understood by some as
giving them permission and opportunity to sleep, and thus refresh themselves to
meet the coming peril. "The obvious
objection to this explanation is that in the same breath He tells them to
awake; but even this is not unnatural, if taken as a sort of
after thought, suggested by the sight or sound of the
approaching enemy.” Others understand
them as ironically spoken. Others still,
as interrogatively: "Sleep ye on
still, and take ye your rest?”
The first
explanation is to be preferred. "The former words," says Ellicott,
"were rather in the accents of a pensive
contemplation— the latter in the tones of exhortation
and command." It was the sudden
appearance of Judas and his band that caused the
words, "Rise, let us be going; behold, he is at hand that doth betray
me," and explain their apparent abruptness.”
Hackett (254)
connects them with the local position of the
garden, from which Jesus could survey at a glance the entire length of the eastern wall, and the slope of
the hill toward the valley.
"It is not improbable that His watchful eyes at that moment caught
sight of Judas and his accomplices, as they issued
from one of the eastern gates, or turned round the
northern or southern corner of the walls, in order
to descend into the valley.”
The time spent
in the garden was probably more than an hour, so that, if they entered it about
According to his
arrangement with the priests, Judas, seeing the Lord standing
with the disciples, leaves those that accompanied him a little behind, and,
coming forward, salutes Him with the usual salutation, and kisses Him. To this Jesus replies, "Friend,
wherefore art thou come?" (Matt. xxvi. 50). "Betrayest
thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke xxii. 48.)
Appalled at
these words, Judas steps backward, and Jesus goes toward the multitude, who
were watching what was taking place, and who, beholding Him advance, await His
approach. It may be that Judas had
advanced so far before his companions that he was not seen by them to kiss the Lord, and that they were still awaiting the sign. He asks, "Whom
seek ye?" They reply, "Jesus of
After a like
question and reply, He requests them to let the apostles go free, thus implying
his own willingness to be taken; and they, thus emboldened, now lay hands upon
Him. At this moment Peter draws his
sword and smites one of the band. Jesus orders him to put up his sword, and
declares that He gives Himself up to them voluntarily, and that, if He needed
help, His Father would send Him legions of angels. The healing of the
servant's ear is mentioned only by Luke (xxii. 51).
He now
addresses a few words to the chief priests and captains and elders, who had
probably to this time been standing behind the soldiers, and now came forward;
and, as He finished, the apostles, seeing Him wholly in the power of His enemies, forsook Him and fled. It does not appear that there was any design
to arrest them. If their Master was
removed out of the way, the Sanhedrim doubtless
thought that they would soon sink into obscurity. There was no attempt to seize them, and in
the darkness and confusion they could easily escape.
Peter and
John, however, continued lurking near by, watching the progress of events. The
incident of the young man "having a linen
cloth cast about his naked body," is mentioned only by Mark (xiv. 51,
52). From the linen cloth or cloak,
Lightfoot infers that he was a religious ascetic, and not a disciple of Jesus, but a casual looker-on. Lichtenstein (395) makes him to have been the
Evangelist Mark himself, and son of the man at
whose house Jesus ate the paschal supper; others, John; others, James the Just.
The circumstances
connected with the arrest are put by some in another order [in] the
incidents narrated by John (xviii. 4-9):
the going forth of Jesus to the multitude;
His questions to them; and their prostration; took place before Judas
approached Him to kiss Him. According to
Stier (vii. 277), Judas was with the band, but stood
irresolute as the Lord came to meet them. He with the others fell to the ground, but,
reviving, goes forward to give the kiss.
But why give
the kiss to make Jesus known, when He already avowedly stood before them? It was not needed as a sign. Stier affirms that
it was given in "the devilish spirit to maintain his consistency and
redeem his word." This may be so,
but the order before given is more probable.
--From: Samuel J. Andrews. The Life of Our Lord
upon the Earth—Considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical
Relations. Fourth
Edition.
WEB: But Jesus
said to him, "Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?"
Young’s: and Jesus said to him, 'Judas, with a
kiss the Son of Man dost thou deliver up?'
Conte (RC): And Jesus said to
him, "Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?"
But Jesus said unto him, Judas, Betrayest
thou the Son of Man. He proves that He is aware of the
secret intention of that salute (Matthew 25:48), and rebukes the traitor for so
much superfluous hypocrisy. [52]
with a kiss? The hallowed token of
friendship. "Must the Son of
man be betrayed by one of His own disciples, as if He had been a hard Master,
or deserved ill at their hands? Must the
badge of friendship be the instrument of treachery?" [9]
Or:
“With a kiss” betrayest thou Me, dishonoring that sacred sign of love, when simply to
have pointed a finger would have been enough?
[52]
And: He
exclaimed “Rabbi, Rabbi, hail” (“Peace to thee, Rabbi”), Mark
Weymouth: Those who were
about Him, seeing what was likely to happen, asked Him, "Master, shall we
strike with the sword?"
WEB: When
those who were around him saw what was about to happen, they said to him,
"Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
Young’s: And those about him,
having seen what was about to be, said to him, 'Sir, shall we smite with
a sword?'
Conte (RC): Then those who were
around him, realizing what was about to happen, said
to him: "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
Lord, shall we smite with the sword? It might have been what Jesus had said in the
upper room about the need of swords, which led His followers now to think of
physical resistance. Perhaps Calvin’s
thought that it was a special temptation of the devil, here, as in their recent
sleep, which confused them, is not without probability. [52]
Since it was illegal to
carry swords on a feast-day, we have here another sign that the Last Supper had
not been the Passover. The bringing of
the sword was part of the misconception which Jesus had not cared further to
remove at the supper. Future years would
teach them Christ’s cause is served by dying, not by
killing. The full reply of our Lord on
this incident must be found by combining Matthew 26:53, John 18:10, 11. [56]
WEB: A certain
one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
Young’s: And a certain one of them smote the
servant of the chief priest, and took off his right ear,
Conte (RC): And one of them
struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
smote. It is far easier to fight for Christ, than
endure for His sake.
Crusaders are
always more numerous than martyrs. [7]
the servant of
the high priest. Malchus.
What was done was serious enough in itself,
but that “the servant of the high priest” (of all people!) should be the
victim was even more so. [rw]
and cut off his right ear. A specific touch not found in the other
Evangelists. [56]
He meant,
doubtless, to cut off his head; but, perhaps, the same power that healed
prevented the true aim of the blow. [9]
WEB: But Jesus
answered, "Let me at least do this"--and he touched his ear, and
healed him.
Young’s: and Jesus answering said, 'Suffer ye thus
far,' and having touched his ear, he healed him.
Conte (RC): But in response,
Jesus said, "Permit even this." And when he had touched his ear, he
healed him.
Or:
Jesus said, "Suffer ye thus
far." I think the words should have
a point of interrogation after them, to mean, "Is it thus far ye
suffer?" "Is this the limit of
your patience?" but I do not know. [48]
Or: He
addresses the disciples and says in effect, “No, do not smite” (but the deed
was done, even as He spoke); “rather suffer even this, namely, that with wicked
hands they should take and slay Me.”
Other expositions—some very far fetched, some trivial—have been given to
“thus far.” The Greek—“even unto this,”
implies that it was a great concession which He asked of them; as indeed it
was. To repair the injury done to Malchus, [whose] standing might greatly harm His cause
(compare John 18:36), He now for the last time—and probably in behalf of one
who was most forward against Him—put forth that healing touch, which had so
often carried health to the sick. [52]
Interpreted as a reference to the arresting party: Probably addressed to the captors, and
meaning “Excuse this much resistance;” Or “Allow me liberty thus far”—free my
arms a moment that I may heal this wounded man.
These snatches of dialogue—often of uncertain interpretation from their
fragmentary character (e.g. Mark
And He touched his ear, and Healed him. Only miracle of healing a
fresh wound caused by violence.
[Yet it was] upon an enemy who asked no favor and showed no
gratitude. [7]
Although all the four
Evangelists mention the cutting off of the servant's ear, yet Luke alone
relates how it was healed. It seems this
miracle was the last the Savior performed.
In one respect it was the greatest.
No doubt the Lord's power was more fully displayed when the dead were
raised, but His grace was most gloriously manifested when His enemy was
healed. Multitudes had often surrounded
Him, entreating Him with piteous cries to restore their blind parents to sight,
and their sick children to health. But this multitude came, not to entreat, but to assault. Yet the gracious Savior healed even one of
this wicked company.
[9]
WEB: Jesus
said to the chief priests, captains of the temple, and elders, who had come
against him, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and
clubs?
Young’s: And Jesus said to those
having come upon him -- chief priests, and magistrates of the temple, and
elders -- 'As upon a robber have ye come forth, with swords and sticks?
Conte (RC): Then Jesus said to
the leaders of the priests, and the magistrates of the temple, and the elders,
who had come to him: "Have you gone out, as if against a thief, with
swords and clubs?
which were
come to Him. The expression shows that these venerable
persons had kept safely in the background till all possible danger was
over. It is evident that the whole band
dreaded some exertion of miraculous power.
[56]
Be ye come out
as against a thief. Rather, “a brand” or “robber.” Am I one of the Sicarii,
or bandits? It is a reproach to them for
their cowardice and secrecy. “If I had
really done wrong, how is it that you did not arrest Me
in the
with swords
and staves? A dangerous and violent man you treat this
way, but what have I done to justify such treatment? [rw]
WEB: When I
was with you in the temple daily, you didn't stretch out your hands against me.
But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."
Young’s: while daily I was with you in the temple,
ye did stretch forth no hands against me; but this is your hour and the power
of the darkness.'
Conte (RC): When I was with you
each day in the temple, you did not extend your hands against me. But this is
your hour and that of the power of darkness."
but this is
your hour. So the Savior explains their conduct: it is the hour appointed in God’s counsel,
foretold in the prophets (Matthew 26:56), for you to work your unhallowed
will. [52]
Or: This is the time of your “victory” over Me,
but it will be as short-lived as if it were literally a mere hour of time . . .
for when “My hour” comes in the
resurrection, it will be an ongoing and permanent victory. [rw]
and the power of
darkness. The power by which you are impelled is that
which darkness gives to wicked men to perpetuate evil deeds, a power which you
could not have exercised in the light of day, when I was among you. The word “darkness” inevitably suggests also,
in this connection, metaphorically, that moral empire whose rulers were “the powers
of darkness” (Colossians
Weymouth: And they arrested Him and led Him away, and brought Him to
the High Priest's house, while Peter followed a good way behind.
WEB: They
seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's house. But
Peter followed from a distance.
Young’s: And having taken him,
they led and brought him to the house of the chief priest. And Peter was
following afar off,
Conte (RC): And apprehending
him, they led him to the house of the high priest. Yet truly, Peter followed at
a distance.
and brought Him into the high priest's house. Matt. xxvi. 57. Mark xiv. 53.
John xviii. 13. Our narrative
leaves it undecided who this high-priest was,--inasmuch as, ch.
iii. 2, Annas and Caiaphas
are mentioned as high-priests. From John
we find that it was Annas; who having questioned
Jesus, sent Him bound to Caiaphas, before whom His
trial took place. Luke omits this trial
altogether--or perhaps gives the substance of it in the account (vv. 66-71) of
the morning assembly of the Sanhedrim. [15]
And Peter followed
afar off. They did not
seem anxious to arrest the disciples. [7]
By this he evinced two
things: 1. Real attachment to His Master--a
desire to be near Him, and to witness His trial. 2.
Fear respecting His personal safety.
He therefore kept so far off as to be out of danger,
and yet so near as that he might witness the transactions respecting his
master. Perhaps he expected to be lost
and unobserved in the crowd. [9]
In depth: A matter
not touched on by Luke [52]: We are not
told here how he got into the court of the high priest’s house, but John
supplies the information. John himself
had gone in with the crowd about Jesus, and then, through some acquaintance
with the high priest, was able to induce the woman who kept the gate to let
Peter come in also. See John 18:15,
16. But as that was in the court of Annas, while what follows here took place in the court of Caiaphas, it seems necessary to assume that both lived in
different parts of a house which surrounded one and the same central
court. As they were so closely related,
and the house of the wealthy and powerful Annas would
be grand and spacious, nothing could be more natural than that it should afford
habitation for them both. The sending
Jesus, therefore, from Annas to Caiaphas,
need be nothing more than having Him taken across a spacious interior court to
the opposite apartment.
Weymouth: And when they had lighted a fire in the middle of the court
and had seated themselves in a group round it, Peter was sitting among them,
WEB: When they
had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard, and had sat down together,
Peter sat among them.
Young’s: and they having kindled a fire in the
midst of the court, and having sat down together, Peter was sitting in the
midst of them,
Conte (RC): Now as they were
sitting around a fire, which had been kindled in the middle of the atrium,
Peter was in their midst.
in the midst
of the hall. A courtyard open to
the sky. This testifies both to the large
size of the property--in order to be able to fit what is clearly a
substantial crowd—30? 40? Or more people. It also gives testimony to the wealth of the
owner--with only limited space inherently available within the city walls, the
bigger the courtyard the more the owner had to spend on the “pleasant” rather
than just the “essential.” [rw]
and were set down
together, Peter sat down among them. Peter
was doing his best to “blend in” with everyone else. Again:
the larger the crowd the easier for his presence to go unnoticed by
anyone who knew who was “supposed” to be there.
Sitting down close to everyone else permitted each individual to provide
partial bodily shelter from any winds and for at least a limited amount of
bodily heat to help take the “edge” off the temperature. [42]
It was like the
impetuosity of his character, but most unwise for one of his temperament. John says (
WEB: A certain
servant girl saw him as he sat in the light, and looking intently at him, said,
"This man also was with him."
Young’s: and a certain maid having seen him
sitting at the light, and having earnestly looked at him, she said, 'And this
one was with him!'
Conte (RC): And when a certain
woman servant had seen him sitting in its light, and had looked at him
intently, she said, "This one was also with him."
beheld him as
he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also
with Him. The
firelight provided enough illumination for her to make an
identification. She gives no hint
that she recognizes that he is one of the leadership of the Jesus movement,
only that of being a known participant in it.
[rw]
WEB: He denied
Jesus, saying, "Woman, I don't know him."
Young’s: and he disowned him, saying, 'Woman, I
have not known him.'
Conte (RC): But he denied him by
saying, "Woman, I do not know him."
WEB: After a
little while someone else saw him, and said, "You also are one of them!"
But Peter answered, "Man, I am not!"
Young’s: And after a little,
another having seen him, said, 'And thou art of them!' and Peter said, 'Man, I
am not.'
Conte (RC):
another. The pronoun, in the Greek, is masculine. [52]
saw him, and said,
Thou art also of them. Again,
no hint that he has any idea of the significance Peter played in the Jesus
movement, but only that he was part of it.
In this context, a dangerous enough accusation
that could easily lead to unknown but frightening consequences. [rw]
And Peter said, Man, I am not. Again the firm—growling? indignant?—denial. [rw]
WEB: After
about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this
man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"
Young’s: And one hour, as it were,
having intervened, a certain other was confidently affirming, saying, 'Of a
truth this one also was with him, for he is also a Galilean;'
Conte (RC): And after a little
while, another one, seeing him, said, "You also are one of them." Yet
Peter said, "O man, I am not."
another confidently
affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow
also was with Him: for he is a Galilaean. The strong provincial dialect of the
fisherman of the Lake of Galilee at once told these Jerusalem Jews, accustomed
to the peculiar pronunciation of the Galilee pilgrims at the Passover Feast,
that the man whom they suspected certainly came from the same province as Jesus
the Accused. [18]
The
fact that a Galilean accent was sufficient to “confidently” indict Peter as a
follower of Jesus would almost have to carry the inferential weight that one
with a Judaean accident was unlikely to
be one. In short, we seem to find an
implication that the Jesus movement had not set down major roots in
This appears to
correspond to the third denial, in Matthew and Mark, inasmuch as they all find
the proof in the fact that Peter was a Galilean. [52]
22:60 Translations
WEB: But Peter
said, "Man, I don't know what you are talking about!" Immediately,
while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed.
Young’s: and Peter said, 'Man, I have not known
what thou sayest;' and presently, while he is
speaking, a cock crew.
Conte (RC): And Peter said:
"Man, I do not know what you are saying." And at once, while he was
still speaking, the rooster crowed.
22:60 And
Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. It may be easy to point the finger of scorn
at the great apostle, but there are few followers of Christ who at times of
less severe testing have not as truly denied their Lord, by word or deed, with
cowardice and deceit and passion. [28]
Luke drops a veil over
the “cursing and swearing” which accompanied this last denial (Matthew
26:74). [56]
And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. How
humiliated Peter must have felt within a few minutes when full recognition sank
in of what he had been doing—the very opposite of what he had sworn would be
the case!
A historical question used to challenge the account: It crew for a second time. Minute critics have imagined that they found
a “difficulty” here because the Talmud says that cocks and hens, from their
scratching in the dung, were regarded as unclean. But as to this the Talmud contradicts itself,
since it often alludes to cocks and hens at
In depth: Differences
in the accounts of the denials as given in the four gospels [52]: The different reports of Peter’s denials
present the agreements and differences natural to so many independent, truthful
accounts of the same series of exciting events, in which numbers have
participated. They all speak of three
denials, in the courtyard of the high priest’s house, or in the space
surrounding it, with a fire burning in the midst of it.
The persons
bringing the charge do not coincide throughout.
In the first denial, it is a maid-servant in each account. In the second, Luke has “another,” in the
masculine; John has “they,” the company.
In the third, Matthew and Mark have “they that stood by”; Luke,
“another” man; John, “one of the servants of the high priest.”
In regard to
the time, all make the three to have taken place before a cock crew, except
Mark, who informs us, in
It is hard, to
see how, under the circumstances, three truly independent narratives could
better agree in everything essential to a true report.
In depth: One
analysis of how the differing pieces of data about Peter’s denial can fit into
a consistent whole: In regard
to the first denial there are no special difficulties. How soon after Peter entered the court he was
addressed by the damsel who kept the door, or portress,
does not appear. It is probable that, as
her attention had been specially drawn to him when he was admitted, she watched
him as he stood by the fire; and that something in his appearance or conduct
may have excited her suspicions. The
attention of all who heard her must now have been
directed to Peter, but no one seems to have joined her in her accusation.
In regard to the second
denial, there are several apparent discrepancies both as to the persons and the
place. The former are described as
"another maid," "the (same) maid," "another
person," "they." But in
the several narratives it is plain that it is not deemed important to specify who
addressed Peter; the important point is his denials.
The matter may very
naturally be thus arranged: The damsel
who first accused him, silenced for the time, but not satisfied with his
denial, speaks to another maid servant, and points out Peter to her as one whom
she knew, or believed, to be a disciple.
Seeing him soon after in the porch, for, in the agitation of his spirit, he cannot keep still, she renews the
charge that he is a disciple; and the other maid repeats it. Others, hearing the girls, also join with
them, perhaps dimly remembering his person, or now noting something peculiar in
his manner. That, under the circumstances and in the excitement of the moment, such an accusation, once raised, should be
echoed by many, is what we should expect.
During the confusion of this questioning, Peter returns again to the fire,
where most were standing, and there repeats with an oath his denial. There is
no necessity for transposing, with Ellicott, the first and second denials as
given by John.
The second denial, so
energetically made, seems to have finally silenced the women, and there is no
repetition of the charge for about the space of an hour. During this interval, Peter, perhaps the
better to allay suspicion, joins in the conversation, and is recognized as a
Galilean by his manner of speech. As most of the
disciples of Jesus were Galileans, this again draws
attention to him.
Perhaps the kinsman of Malchus, who had been with
the multitude, and had seen him in the garden, and now remembers his person,
begins the outcry, and the bystanders join with him; and the more that his very
denials betray his Galilean birth. The charge, thus repeated by so many, and
upon such apparently good grounds, threatens immediate danger; and Peter
therefore denies it with the utmost vehemence, with oaths and cursings.
The exact relations in which the denials of Peter stand
in order of time to the examination and trial of the Lord, it is impossible
to determine. Probably the first denial,
and perhaps also the second—for there seems to have been but a short interval
between them (Luke xxii. 58)—may have been during the preliminary examination
before Caiaphas, or at least before the assembling of the Sanhedrim; and the third during the trial or at
its close.
The incident recorded by
Luke, (xxii. 61), that immediately after the third denial, as the cock crew, the
Lord turned and looked upon Peter, is supposed by
some to show that Jesus was now passing from one apartment to another, and, as
He passes, turns and looks upon Peter, who was standing near by. But, if so, when was this? Those who put the preliminary examination
before Annas, and Peter's denials there, make this
the departure to Caiaphas after the examination;
others, His departure after the trial from Caiaphas
to Pilate; others still, the change from the apartment in Caiaphas'
palace, where He had been examined, to that in which He was to be tried.
But it is by no means
necessary to suppose any change of place on the part of the Lord.
As we have seen, the Sanhedrim probably assembled
in a large room directly connected with the court, and open in front, and
therefore what was said in the one could, with more or less distinctness, be
heard in the other. There is, then, no difficulty in believing that Jesus had
heard all the denials of Peter; and that now, as he denied Him for the third time, and
the cock crew, He turned Himself to the court and looked upon the
conscience-stricken apostle.
Meyer indeed,
finds it psychologically impossible that he should have made these denials in
the presence of Jesus. Few will deem
such a psychological impossibility, which exists only in the mind of the critic, of much weight against the
word of an Evangelist; but, in
fact, Peter was not in His presence, though not far removed.
We have no datum to
determine at what hour of the night these denials
took place, except we find it in the cockcrowings. Mark (xiv. 68) relates that after the first
denial the cock crow[ed]. All the Evangelists mention the third denial
in connection with the second cock-crowing.
Greswell (iii 216) makes the first
cock-crowing to have been about
-- From: Samuel J. Andrews. The Life of Our Lord
upon the Earth—Considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical
Relations. Fourth
Edition.
22:61 Translations
Weymouth: The Master turned and looked on Peter; and Peter recollected
the Master's words, how He had said to him, "This very day, before the
cock crows, you will disown me three times."
WEB: The Lord
turned, and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the Lord's word, how he said
to him, "Before the rooster crows you will deny me three times."
Young’s: And the Lord having
turned did look on Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he
said to him -- 'Before a cock shall crow, thou mayest
disown me thrice;'
Conte (RC): And the Lord turned
around and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he
had said: "For before the rooster crows, you will deny me three
times."
22:61 And
the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. All four Evangelists tell the story of
Peter's threefold denial and swift repentance, but we owe the knowledge of the
look of Christ's to Luke only. The other
Evangelists connect the sudden change in the denier with his hearing the cock
crow only, but according to Luke there were two causes co-operating to bring
about that sudden repentance, for, he says, "Immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." And we cannot doubt that it was the Lord's
look enforcing the fulfilment of His prediction of
the cock-crow that broke down the denier.
[47]
At the third denial, the
Lord "turned." Two
explanations: (a) Jesus was tried in one of the halls which surrounded
the inner court of an Oriental house. As
these were open to view Jesus could hear Peter curse and swear and deny; when
he became very vehement, Jesus
"turned" towards
him; (b)
After His condemnation the Lord was led from the hall of judgment to the
apartments of the servants, there to wait until the morning trial. Just when Jesus passed him Peter cursed and
the Lord "turned" towards him.
[22]
And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said
unto Him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. In the
stress of the waiting in the courtyard, Peter had either forgotten the
prediction or had become so preoccupied with not being recognized that
it was far from his conscious thoughts.
This glance, however, pushed it to the forefront of his mind, where it
surely landed with all the pain of a sledgehammer. [rw]
22:62 Translations
WEB: He went
out, and wept bitterly.
Young’s: and Peter having gone without, wept
bitterly.
Conte (RC): And going out, Peter
wept bitterly.
22:62 And
Peter went out, and wept bitterly. It is
easy to “sermonize” over Peter’s weakness and denials of Jesus. However anyone who has lived even thirty or
forty years has surely faced a situation in which lies were told because they seemed
“the only way out.” Some have even gone
beyond shame in their reaction and, like Peter, been horrified in retrospect at
what human weakness led them into. So
let us cut the man “a little slack” as we evaluate his actions. As the saying goes, “There but for the grace
of God goes I—and you.” Every one of us
would have the same potential for failure as Peter did if we had been in his
shoes. To deny it, surely borders on self-delusion,
does it not? [rw]
wept. Not only edakruse,
“shed tears,” but eklause, “wept aloud;” and,
as Mark says (14:72), eklai, “he continued
weeping.” It was more than a mere burst
of tears. [56]
bitterly. Mark says epibalon, which may mean, “where he thought
thereon,” or “flinging his mantle over his head.” [56]
Hiding his face would be a natural reaction as he walked a little away from
those who had been challenging him as a disciple (embarrassment and humiliation
at the accurate claim being made at all?
at the tears that were beginning to flow? both?). The first could carry the connotation that
the longer he thought about the denial, the more it tore him up and the greater
he cried. Both would be natural
reactions under the circumstances. [rw]
22:63 Translations
WEB: The men
who held Jesus mocked him and beat him.
Young’s: And the men who were holding Jesus were
mocking him, beating him;
Conte (RC): And the men who were
holding him ridiculed him and beat him.
22:63 And the men that held Jesus mocked Him. The original
makes the particular injuries to be the mockery, thus: “mocked Him, beating Him; and blindfolding
Him, they asked Him,” etc. [52]
and smote Him. The
“beating” here was such as properly implies the use of rods or scourges. [52]
No less than five forms
of beating are referred to by the Evangelists in describing this pathetic
scene—derontes here (a general term); etupton, “they kept smiting;” paisas
in the next verse, implying violence; ekolaphisan,
“slapped with the open palm,” Matthew 26:67;
errapisan, “smote with sticks” (Ibid.);
and rapismasin eballon,
Mark 14:65. See the
prophesy of Isaiah l. 6. The
Priests of that day, and their pampered followers, were too much addicted to
these brutalities (Acts
In depth: How the
trial before Caiphas’ rump Sanhedrin would leave the
crowd confident that they could treat Jesus any way they wished [56].
The Priests on that occasion “sought false witness,” but their false
witnesses contradicted each other in their attempt to prove that He had
threatened to destroy the
22:64 Translations
WEB: Having
blindfolded him, they struck him on the face and asked him, "Prophesy! Who
is the one who struck you?"
Young’s: and
having blindfolded him, they were striking him on the face, and were
questioning him, saying, 'Prophesy who he is who smote thee?'
Conte (RC): And they blindfolded
him and repeatedly struck his face. And they questioned him, saying:
"Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"
22:64 And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the
face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? Now
they get their “reward” for being up all night and half freezing during the
pseudo-hearings: they get the
opportunity to make life a misery for this supposed prophet. After all a true prophet should have
been able to answer “who is it that smote thee?” wouldn’t he? For that matter (either out of ignorance or
of setting aside the facts of the Old Testament that would spoil their
entertainment) would God have even permitted such to happen to a true prophet,
especially one claiming to such greatness as this Jesus?
And, of course, he was a despised Galilean—a
sanctioned time to unloose their spleen with all their regional resentments of
that despised breed of Jews. This isn’t
“lynch law” because it isn’t really intended as punishment. It is simply the opportunity to use
violence—without any repercussion—when normally they had to be careful where,
when, and if to unleash their violent side at all. This was, to be blunt, “entertainment” for
them. [rw]
22:65 Translations
WEB: They
spoke many other things against him, insulting him.
Young’s: and
many other things, speaking evilly, they spake in
regard to him.
Conte (RC): And blaspheming in
many other ways, they spoke against him.
22:65 And many other things blasphemously spake
they against Him. The
text doesn’t bother to fill in the details.
Once people plunge into this “insult mode,” facts no longer matter. Just what is derogatory and demeaning. Would one
be doing an insult to probability if one suspects that more than a few had had
a number of “warming (alcoholic) drinks” to get them through the night
hours? Certainly such provides further
excuse to unleash any violence that may dwell within—even in our age. [rw]
blasphemously. This term now bears a different meaning. Here it merely means “reviling Him.” [56]
In depth: Another
reconstruction of the chronology of events of that night from the four gospel
accounts [18]. The position
of the Redeemer when the cruelties took place, described in this and the two
[earlier] verses, was as follows: After the arrest in
In the first instance, Jesus was
brought before Annas, who was evidently the leading
personage of the Sanhedrin of that day.
Details of the preliminary examination are given apparently by John
18:13, 19-24. In this first and informal
trial Caiaphas was evidently present, and took part
(John
This, the second trial of Jesus, is
related at some length by St. Matthew (Matthew 26:59-66) and
After this hearing before Caiapnas and a committee of the Sanhedrin, the condemned
One was conducted before the full assembly of the Sanhedrin. While being led across the court, he heard
Peter's third denial. It was during the interval which elapsed before the great
council assembled, that the mocking related in these verses (63-65) took place.
22:66 Translations
Weymouth: As soon as it
was day, the whole body of the Elders, both High Priests and Scribes,
assembled. Then He was brought into their Sanhedrin, and they asked Him,
WEB: As soon
as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him
away into their council, saying,
Young’s: And when it became day there was gathered
together the eldership of the people, chief priests also, and scribes, and they
led him up to their own sanhedrim,
Conte (RC): And when it was
daytime, the elders of the people, and the leaders of the priests, and the
scribes convened. And they led him into their council, saying, "If you are
the Christ, tell us."
22:66 And as soon as it
was day. The Oral Law decided that the Sanhedrin could
only meet by daylight. [56]
There were
three stages or processes of proceedings against Jesus:
1. The preliminary examination, which probably took place while the
full Sanhedrim was assembling. (Matt.
xxvi. 57; Mark xiv. 63; Luke xxii. 54; John xviii. 13, 19-24.)
2. The trial before the Sanhedrim. (Matt. xxvi. 59-68; Mark
xiv. 55-65.)
3. The subsequent consultation as to the best
method of effecting the death of Jesus. (Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv.
1.)
After the
council had condemned Jesus the first time, they seem to have separated, and
met again early in the morning. It is to
this second meeting of the council the words, "as
soon as it was day," most probably refer.
The sun rose at that season of the year, in
the elders of
the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together. The classes of which
the Sanhedrim was composed, which consisted of seventy persons, of whom the
high priest was the chief. There
were other members of this great council, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. [9]
and led Him into their council, saying. The place of their meeting was probably no
longer the office in one front of the high priest’s palace. Compare Matthew 27:5. [52]
It seems
probable that Luke here gives us an account of a second and formal judgment
held in the morning. The similarity of
the things said at the two hearings may be accounted for by remembering that
they were both more or less formal processes in legal courts, one the
precognition, the other, the decision, at which the things said before would be
likely to be nearly repeated. [15]
22:67 Translations
WEB: "If
you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you,
you won't believe,
Young’s: saying, 'If thou be the Christ, tell us.'
And he said to them, 'If I may tell you, ye will not believe;
Conte (RC): And he said to them:
"If I tell you, you will not believe me.
22:67 Art
thou the Christ? tell
us. Their object was to draw
from Him here what He had previously declared (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62), that
they might base formal action upon it.
The attempt to convict Him of any secular crime appears to have broken
down with the failure of the unprincipled Annas. Perhaps they thought they might use His claim
to be the Messiah as threatening to the civil government. While not at all varying from His previous
acknowledgment [of Messiahship], to repeat it now
[would be in such a context as to give them a pretext to use it before Pilate
against Him as an evidence of treason.] [52]
And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe. It was
simply to turn His declaration into a weapon against Him that they wanted Him
to speak. Former professions of His Messiahship (John
22:68 Translations
Weymouth: and if I ask
you questions, you will certainly not answer.
WEB: and if I
ask, you will in no way answer me or let me go.
Young’s: and if I also question you, ye will not
answer me or send me away;
Conte (RC): And if I also
question you, you will not answer me. Neither will you release me.
22:68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me. Questions
touching the Scripture proof of My Messiahship. [52]
Or: This was a tribunal before which the
decision was preordained by the leadership.
Whatever He should ask or plead on any subject would be cast
aside except to the extent it might provide them an excuse for accusations and
action against Him. This was a court
which would prefer not to hear a defense in the first place and, if somehow
forced to, was going to ignore it. Hence
silence would give them less to work with and make them have to strive even
harder to find an excuse for what they had already decided. [rw]
nor let Me go. My
freedom was never an option from the time you arrested me. The only question at issue was going to be
the exact accusations and wording of them that would be used to convict. [rw]
22:69 Translations
WEB: From now
on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
Young’s: henceforth, there shall be the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of the power of God.'
Conte (RC): But from this time,
the Son of man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God."
22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sat on right hand of power of
God. There is a plain reference in these words to
the prophecy of Daniel. (Dan. vii. 9-14.) Our Lord evidently implies that He was
the person to whom that prophecy pointed; and that, although condemned by the
Jews, He would shortly be exalted to the highest position of dignity in
heaven. The Jews saw this at once, and
proceeded to put the question of the next verse. [9]
Implicit here is a claim that “hereafter”—after this is all over—no
matter what they have done, He will have regal power. He will be ruling as King. Hence He manages to interject an explicitly
regal aspect to His Messianic claims without actually using the word
“King” that would have been even more inflammatory to His listeners. The Sanhedrin claimed to be the “rulers” of
22:70 Translations
WEB: They all
said, "Are you then the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say
it, because I am."
Young’s: And they all said, 'Thou, then, art the
Son of God?' and he said unto them, 'Ye say it, because I am;'
Conte (RC): Then they all said,
"So you are the Son of God?" And he said. "You are saying that I
am."
22:70 Then
said they all, Art thou then the Son of God. Note
how they equate His “Son of Man” claim of the previous verse with the concept
of “Son of God.” Surely this argues
quite powerfully that they understood (rightly) that (1) the two referred to
the same individual and (2) that the prophesied “Son of Man” would have a
unique Divine “Sonship” element to Him that others
would not have. [52]
and He said unto
them, ye say that I am. Which is a form of
assenting or affirming, and equivalent to saying, "Ye say rightly that I
am." The same in sense is
given by Mark xiv. 62, "I am."
Seldom in the course of His Ministry did our Lord announce Himself as
the messiah. But here in the great and trying moment, when questioned by the
representatives of the Jewish nation.
"Art thou the Son of God?"
He returned the solemn reply.
"Ye say that I am"--a Hebraistic
form of affirmation. [9]
22:71 Translations
WEB: They
said, "Why do we need any more witness? For we
ourselves have heard from his own mouth!"
Young’s: and they said, 'What need yet have we of
testimony? for we ourselves did hear it from his
mouth.'
Conte (RC): And they said:
"Why do we still require testimony? For we have heard it
ourselves, from his own mouth."
22:71 And
they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves
have heard of His own mouth. Do they
really believe this or are they simply so frustrated at their inability to pry
out the words they could most easily use, that they have to go with what they
have obtained—meager (from the Roman standpoint) as it is? Regardless, to use the modern phrase “the
clock was running.” They only had a
limited time to ram through Roman approval and execution.
Therefore, whether they were genuinely
satisfied with what they had or not, they had no practical choice but to go
forward with it. To act otherwise would
require postponing execution until after the major religious rites were
completed—and with multitudes of Galileans not yet having returned homeward
(not to mention an unknown number of Judaean
sympathizers!) the possibility of a vehement and massive popular reaction to
what was happening was far from impossible.
Hence, death had to be in the short-term before such potential
“complications” could mushroom into a disaster for them. [rw]
In depth: Illegalities of
Jesus' trial [22]. The following are some of the illegal features of Christ's trial: Trying a criminal in the night; passing
judgment of death before one night had elapsed after the trial; trying a
criminal case on the day before the Sabbath or a feast; undue haste; compelling
the prisoner to testify against Himself; the judicial use of the prisoner's
confession; the seeking (probably buying) witnesses; the neglect to warn the
witnesses solemnly before giving evidence; the failure to release Jesus when
the two witnesses did not agree, as concurrent testimony of two witnesses was
necessary to framing an indictment.
[Hence] the
trial was illegal provided that we have a full report of proceedings and that
the Talmudic law was enforced in
In depth: In light of
the Sadducee dominance, were the violations of traditional judicial protocol in
the trial caused by their influence?—A negative evaluation [18]. Derenbourg attributes the undue illegal precipitancy of the
whole proceeding to the overwhelming influence exercised in the supreme council
by Annas and Caiaphas with
their friends who were Sadducees, a party notorious for their cruelty as well
as for their unbelief. Had the Pharisees
borne sway in the Sanhedrin at that juncture, such an illegality could never
have taken place. This apology possesses
certain weight, as it is based upon known historical facts; yet when the
general bearing of the Pharisee party towards our Lord during the greater part
of his public ministry is remembered, it can scarcely be supposed that the
action of the Sadducee majority in the Sanhedrin was repugnant to, or even
opposed by, the Pharisee element in the great assembly.
Or at least not a sufficient number of them.
Remember also that the Pharisees viewed Jesus as outrageously
misguided. Why should they tackle the
nearly impossible battle to rescue a man they themselves regarded as nothing
short of a heretic himself? What would
they gain for themselves or their movement other than to deepen the rage of the
dominant Sadducean faction against them? And what good purpose would that
possibly advance? [rw]
* * * * * *
In depth: An
introductory survey to the tension between the Synoptics
and John and whether Jesus’ “Passover” celebration was on the official date or
not [52]. Luke 22:7:
“And the day of unleavened bread came when the passover must be killed” or sacrificed. Before (verse 1) it was drawing nigh; now it
has come. This day was the 14th
of Nisan, before
As it is, we are turned
to another question. On what day of the
month was Christ crucified? That the day of the week was a Friday, scarcely is or can be
disputed (
Indeed, from the chief
indications of date in these Gospels no doubt would probably ever have arisen
that the Last Supper of our Lord took place simultaneously with the Passover
meal of the Jews generally. But when one
goes with unbiased mind to the Gospel of John, he finds the leading indications
of time pointing to a different hour.
The “supper” spoken of (John 13:2) is correctly regarded as identical
with that of the Passover in our chapter; but it is said (verse 1) to have
taken place “before the Passover.” Again
in verse 29, when Judas went out, some thought he had gone to buy the things
which they needed for the feast; as if the feast was yet to come, and there was
free opportunity to make any purchases.
This, many think, could hardly have been supposable on the Passover
evening.
In John 18:28, the
rulers, on the morning of the crucifixion, were careful against defiling
themselves, that “they might eat the Passover.”
In
On the basis of these
diverging representations, the judgment of Christian scholars has always been
divided as to whether Jesus then celebrated the Passover with His disciples,
according to the common usage, and at the regular time, or instituted a new
observance, “this Passover” = “our Passover,” on the evening before, and
was Himself put to death at the hour when the Jewish lambs were superfluously
bleeding, at the temple. Those who are
controlled by the obvious sense of John’s narrative, suppose that Saturday (the
Sabbath) was the proper Passover day, the 15th of Nisan; that the
lambs were sacrificed on Friday afternoon, and the supper eaten that evening,
after the Sabbath had begun. The early
Christian writers generally appear to have taken this view, as have several of
the most eminent scholars recently, especially those who have treated John’s
Gospel by itself.
The prevalent
view, however, has been that to which the Synoptical
narrative would most naturally lead—that Friday was the true Passover day, and
Thursday evening the hour of the Passover meal. We do not undertake to decide the question,
which would involve too much of the interpretation of John’s Gospel. The fact that the most eminent expositors
have differed in their judgment in the matter, through all periods of
independent exegesis of the New Testament, and never more so than within the
past twenty-five years, shows that the probabilities are pretty evenly
balanced.
Whichever
conclusion a man may have reached, he will be more likely, in proportion as he
has investigated most thoroughly, to see how another may have come to a
different result from the same data. A
breath may seem sufficient to have turned the scales. We shall proceed to develop what saliently
presents itself as the view of our Evangelist[--Luke].
In depth: Reconstructing
the time scenario—the approach that makes this observance the day before the official Passover occurred [18]. The three synoptists
unite in describing this solemn meal, for which Peter and John were sent to
prepare, as the ordinary Paschal Supper.
But, on comparing the record of the same Supper given by St. John, we
are irresistibly led to a different conclusion; for we read that on the
following day those who led Jesus into the Praetorium
went not in themselves, "lest they should be defiled; but that they
might eat the Passover" (John 18:28); and again it is said of
the same day, that "it was the preparation of the Passover" (John
19:14).
So the time of the Supper is
described by
The most venerable of the Fathers
preserved this as a sacred tradition. So
Justin Martyr: "On the day of the Passover ye took him, and on the day of
the Passover ye crucified him" ('Dial. cum Trypho,'
ch. 3.). To
the same effect write Irenaeus ('Adv. Haer.,' 4.23) and Tertullian
('Adv. Judaeos,' ch.
8). Clement of
The question—as to whether the famous
Last Supper was the actual Passover Supper, or the anticipatory Paschal Feast,
which we believe it to have been—is important; for thus the language of St.
Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7), "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,"
is justified. "The apostle regarded
not the Last Supper, but the death of Christ, as the antitype of the Paschal sacrifice,
and the correspondence of type and antitype would be incomplete unless the
sacrifice of the Redeemer took place at the time on which alone that of the
Paschal lamb could legally be offered" (Dean Mansel).
In depth: A longer
analysis also concluding that the meal Jesus participated in was not an official Passover meal [56].
The question whether, before the institution of the Lord’s Supper, our
Lord and His Disciples ate the usual Jewish Passover—in other words, whether in
the year of the Crucifixion the ordinary Jewish Passover (Nissan 15) began on
the evening of Thursday or on the evening of Friday—is a question which has
been ably and voluminously debated, and respecting which eminent authorities
have come to opposite conclusions.
From the Synoptists alone we should no doubt infer that the
ordinary Paschal Feast was eaten by our Lord and His Disciples, as by all the
Jews, on the evening of Thursday (Matthew 26:2, 17, 18, 19; Mark 14:14-16; Luke
22:7, 11-13, 15).
On the other hand, St.
John uses language which seems quite as distinctly to imply that the Passover
was not eaten till the next day (13:1, “before the Feast of the
Passover;” 29, “those things that we have need of against the feast;”
18:28, “they themselves went not into the judgment-hall lest they should be
defiled; but that they might eat the passover”). He also calls the Sabbath (Saturday) a high
day (a name given by the Jews to the first and last days of the
octave of a feast) apparently because it was both a Sabbath and the first day
of the Passover: and says
Now since the language
of St. John seems to be perfectly explicit, and since it is impossible to
explain away his expressions by any natural process—though no doubt they can
be explained away by a certain amount of learned ingenuity—it seems more simple
to accept his express statement and to interpret thereby the less definite
language of the Synoptists.
We may set aside many
current explanations of the difficulty, such as that—
·
Two
different days may have been observed in consequence of different astronomical
calculations about the day.
·
Some
laxity as to the day may have been introduced by different explanations of
“between the two evenings.”
·
The Jews
in their hatred put off their Passover till the next evening.
·
·
The
supper described by
·
The last
Supper was an ordinary Passover, only it was eaten by anticipation.
Setting aside
these and many other untenable views, it seems probable that the Last Supper
was not the ordinary Jewish Paschal meal, but was eaten the evening
before the ordinary Jewish Passover; and that the language of the Synoptists is perfectly consistent and explicable on the
view that our Lord gave to His last Supper a Paschal character (“to eat this
Passover,” or “this as a Passover,” Luke 22:15), and spoke of it to His
disciples as their Passover. Hence had arisen in the Church the view that it actually was the
Paschal meal—which
When we adopt
this conclusion—that the Last Supper was not the Paschal Feast itself, but
intended to supersede and abrogate it—it is supported by a multitude of facts
and allusions in the Synoptists themselves; e.g.
i.
The occupations of the
Friday on which Jesus was crucified show no sign whatever of its having
been a very solemn festival. The Jews
kept their chief festival days with a scrupulosity
almost as great as that with which they kept their Sabbaths. Yet on this Friday working, buying, selling,
holding trials, executing criminals, bearing burdens, etc. is going on as
usual. Everything tends to show that the
day was a common Friday, and that the Passover only began at sunset.
ii. The Sanhedrin had
distinctly said that it would be both dangerous and impolitic to put Christ to
death on the Feast day (Mark 14:2, and compare Acts 12:4).
iii. Not a word is said in any of the Evangelists
about the Lamb—the most important and essential element of the Paschal meal;
nor of the unleavened bread at the Supper; nor of the bitter herbs; nor of the
sauce Charoseth; nor of the account given by
the Chief Person present of the Institution of the Passover, etc.
Further than
this, many arguments tend to show that this Last Supper was not a
Paschal meal; e.g.:
·
Early
Christian tradition—apparently down to the time of Chrysosteom—distinguished
between the Last Supper and the Passover.
Hence the Eastern Church always uses leavened bread at the
Eucharist, as did the
·
Jewish
tradition—with no object in view—fixes the Death of Christ on the afternoon before
the Passover (Erebh Pesach).
·
The
language of
·
If our
Lord had eaten an actual Paschal meal the very evening before His death, the
Jews might fairly have argued that He was not Himself the Paschal Lamb; whereas
·
There was
a peculiar symbolic fitness in the fact that He—the True Lamb—was offered at
the very time when the Lamb which was but a type was being sacrificed.
For these and
other reasons—I still hold that the Last Supper was not the actual
Jewish Passover, but a quasi-Passover, a new and Christian Passover.
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint,
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John.
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John.
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus.
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes.
"Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids,
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
14 = D.D. Whedon.
Commentary on the Gospels:
Luke-John. New
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament.
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
...with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke.
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both).
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel.
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint,
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition.
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments.
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ.
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus.
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York:
A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament.
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
the
University Press, 1882.